glibc2.1 [offtopic]

[Zack Weinberg]

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:08:17 -0800 (PST), H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >
>> >It works for me. You never gave me a convincing example to show
>> >it is broken. Maybe we have different opinions on what "broken"
>> >means in this context.
>> 
>> "It works for me" != "it works for everyone".
>> 
>> You localized a bunch of symbols that have been in libgcc since GCC1
>> and will never go away.  Things like _muldi3.  Those symbols are
>> re-exported by libc.  We can't take them out without breaking every
>> binary that needs them.
>> 
>
>I have compiled glibc 2.1 with my egcs 1.1.1/Linux and installed
>it on several RedHat 5.2 systems. Can you tell me which binary I
>should check?

I can't find one, which indicates how obscure the problem is.  The
characteristics are: program linked with libstdc++ compiled by a
compiler without your patch, run on system with libstdc++ compiled
with your patch.

zw